|
You know, in Barcelona such deliberations are summed up: “ Pussy Boy”. Only, in their sibilance, it sounds like “puthy”. Be guided accordingly.
|
Originally Posted by BuzzBox
(Post 11063903)
121.535 (2) or (3) allows the PIC to delegate the conduct of the flight to an appropriately qualified pilot who meets the specified requirements, no?
|
Originally Posted by Buttscratcher
(Post 11063949)
Why do you care?
......do you really need written permission to take a piss now. |
Originally Posted by Bug Smasher Smasher
(Post 11063998)
How many FOs on domestic operations have ATPLs?
Hopefully, common sense would prevail, but I'm not sure such a thing exists in CASA's world of 'strict liability'. |
Here's another twist to this lunacy. PIC goes incap, dead at the steering wheel! F/O assumes command (obviously) but during the aftermath of securing the skippers body in his seat with the help of some 25 yr old FA who is beside herself thinking they are all gunna die the F/O due to the high levels of stress now needs to go take a dump himself, he's ****ting himself anyway, who assumes command now never lone the bull**** R/T rules? -)
|
Leadie, CASA will not issue exemptions against the new rules - I have tried however CASA will no longer entertain exemptions based on the recent feedback that I have received from CASA.
|
Originally Posted by Duck Pilot
(Post 11064067)
Leadie, CASA will not issue exemptions against the new rules - I have tried however CASA will no longer entertain exemptions based on the recent feedback that I have received from CASA.
This looks very much like a very recent exemption against a new rule: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2021L00196. As does this one: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2021L00532. And this one as well: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2020L01248. And most of the rest of the page of search results I have in front of me… |
Originally Posted by BuzzBox
(Post 11064043)
As I said in a previous comment: "121.535 provides for relief of the PIC, but it doesn’'t explain how an FO or SO without an ATPL can be left in charge."
Hopefully, common sense would prevail, but I'm not sure such a thing exists in CASA's world of 'strict liability'. |
Where do the ‘new rules’ provide relief if your ‘Company Docs’ provide for it? The number of the regulation, please.
|
Originally Posted by Duck Pilot
(Post 11064067)
Leadie, CASA will not issue exemptions against the new rules - I have tried however CASA will no longer entertain exemptions based on the recent feedback that I have received from CASA.
https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/careers-casa |
Originally Posted by Duck Pilot
(Post 11064067)
Leadie, CASA will not issue exemptions against the new rules - I have tried however CASA will no longer entertain exemptions based on the recent feedback that I have received from CASA.
But because so many operators were getting shafted, CASA now have a process to apply for minor variations to the prescriptive rules. so, basically we are back to exemptions. |
So there I was on a SYD-DRW flight cruising along quite happily in the FL3xx range when all of a sudden I feel the call of nature.
My FO, being only a CPL, can't fly the ship by himself (according to the red tape) so we divert to BNE for me to avail myself of the facilities. Do that often enough and the problem will be fixed sooner than you can say "It's all the fault of the regulator" |
Originally Posted by Car RAMROD
(Post 11064151)
That was exactly the same with the fatigue rules.
But because so many operators were getting shafted, CASA now have a process to apply for minor variations to the prescriptive rules. so, basically we are back to exemptions. Back to behind closed doors favouritism (which is exactly why CASA was made to publish and table exemptions in the first place). |
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 11064509)
And let me guess: They’ve wangled it so that the “minor variations” don’t have to be published and tabled, so we won’t know who’s getting what?
Back to behind closed doors favouritism (which is exactly why CASA was made to publish and table exemptions in the first place). So, as you say, CASA playing favourites again. |
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 11064103)
Where do the ‘new rules’ provide relief if your ‘Company Docs’ provide for it? The number of the regulation, please.
Why would I give a ****? |
Lead, Roj- yup totally correct.
But it won’t take too long for the info to spread around. |
All the above comments merely reinforce my admittedly somewhat jaundiced view that CASA really stands for #*@&s Against Sensible Aviation.
it’s the federal government lawyers. What's the difference between a Lawyer and a European Carp? Answers on a postcard please. |
Aren't the rules being rewritten to make them easier, more functional or has that finished and this mess is the result?
|
Originally Posted by clark y
(Post 11064965)
Aren't the rules being rewritten to make them easier, more functional or has that finished and this mess is the result?
Yep: You read that correctly. The plan was never to replace the 1988 regulations with simple, outcomes-based and harmonised 1998 regulations that would render exemptions unnecessary. Nope. The plan was always to spend 20 plus years and more than a couple of hundred millions dollars:
|
They have released "Plain English Guides" for several areas. The plain english one to explain CAO48.1 I found to be more difficult to read than the actual CAO (that might be just me maybe but my eyes glazed over at the following plain english paragraphs:
An FDP commencing at 0900 allows a maximum FDP of 11 hours. This may be extended by 4 hours (to 15 hours) by use of an SDRP (in sleeping accommodation) of 4 hours. The first 4 hours of the SDRP can be reduced to 2 hours for the purpose of the ODP calculation. The 15 hour duty period is therefore deemed to be 13 hours (which is 1 hour in excess of 12).The subsequent minimum ODP required is 12 hours plus (1.5 *1) = 13.5 hours. After 3 consecutive WOCL infringements, you must have an off-duty period over a local night. You are permitted to infringe the WOCL more than 3 times only in accordance with the early start provisions above.A duty that falls within any part of the WOCL means the WOCL is infringed I think the best idea is to not let your f'dup impinge on your wocl. :) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 00:52. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.